[Taxacom] Integrative taxonomy

[Richard Pyle]

Read my earlier post to Stephen.  The subspecies thing was only in the
context of cases where a known species is potentially split into many. 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bob Mesibov [mailto:mesibov at southcom.com.au] 
> Sent: Saturday, July 31, 2010 8:00 PM
> To: Richard Pyle
> Cc: Stephen Thorpe; TAXACOM
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Integrative taxonomy
> 
> Richard Pyle wrote:
> 
> 'To even consider recognition as a "candidate species", we 
> have to assume there is some minimal level of "consistent 
> morphological [or genotypical] differences". When these 
> differences are "too small to indicate reproductive 
> isolation" with sufficient confidence to justify a 
> full-species name, then a candidate species may be warranted. 
> In my mind, this is exactly the sort of situation when we 
> ought to consider subspecies designators.'
> 
> Subspecies of what? Only validly named and described species? 
> The authors of the FIZ article suggest candidate names for 
> possible novelties. Because these cannot be included as 
> subspecies anywhere, would you prefer leaving them in limbo, 
> or do you see (as the authors do) the need for publication 
> with a coding system?
> --
> Dr Robert Mesibov
> Honorary Research Associate
> Queen Victoria Museum and Art Gallery, and School of Zoology, 
> University of Tasmania Home contact: PO Box 101, Penguin, 
> Tasmania, Australia 7316
> 03 64371195; 61 3 64371195
> Webpage: http://www.qvmag.tas.gov.au/?articleID=570
>